Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support for multiple controllers in Boundary Desktop #3157

Open
reza-solaris opened this issue Apr 11, 2023 · 7 comments
Open

Support for multiple controllers in Boundary Desktop #3157

reza-solaris opened this issue Apr 11, 2023 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@reza-solaris
Copy link

Hello,
Currently, if there are multiple Boundary installations, the user must sign out from one instance and connect to the other. The user must also type in the URL of each installation at every login.

It would be very beneficial if the Boundary Desktop client would allow multiple active instance connections. Something like having multiple instances of Boundary Desktop client open at the same time. To overcome this, we are currently using open -n -a Boundary.app to authenticate to multiple controllers at the same time. But it is not a convenient solution.

Something like this:
Screenshot 2023-04-11 at 1 22 23 PM

@xingluw xingluw added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 11, 2023
@xingluw
Copy link
Contributor

xingluw commented Apr 11, 2023

Hi @reza-solaris, thank you for this feature request, this is something we have considered adding to the product, I will leave this post open to gauge community interest.

@xingluw xingluw self-assigned this Apr 11, 2023
@somurzakov
Copy link

All companies will have multiple controllers (each for dev/test/staging/prod at least) and this feature is needed for any developer to be able to seamlessly roam across different environments

@xingluw
Copy link
Contributor

xingluw commented Apr 19, 2023

@somurzakov @reza-solaris Boundary supports multiple scopes (Orgs and Projects) which allows teams to have several different environments to manage targets and users, as well as flexibility in auth methods. I am wondering if that solves the issue, or why there is a need to run multiple control planes (which would require multiple accounts)?

@reza-solaris
Copy link
Author

Although it is possible to have all the targets from different environments in one controller, it would mean having a network connectivity from a single controller to other network segments (controller-worker connectivity). Thus, that would break the network segregation.

@xingluw
Copy link
Contributor

xingluw commented Apr 20, 2023

Is there a concern with the control plane being able to reach all workers/networks if there are role-based permissions that prevent users from reaching those networks?

Or is it a requirement that certain networks can only be accessed by certain controllers? Completely air-gapping the environments.

Edit: Is the purpose of this to test out Boundary functionality and configurations? Or to separate production-level, widely-accessed infrastructure?

@reza-solaris
Copy link
Author

Yes. Correct. The purpose of this functionality is to have production network complete segregation.

@muthukumars
Copy link

boundary authenticate to a controller1-url from command line
boundary authenticate to a controller2-url from command line.
one can access targets in controller1 as well as controller2 because both tokens are available and stored.
the same is not in Boundary desktop as per this posting.

Use cases could be possible

  1. i do not want to allow the users to access targets in controller1 when I am authenticated on controler2 and vice-versa (both in CLI and desktop) - looks like desktop works that way. how do we do in CLI
  2. it is also possible use case, both CLI and boundary desktop may expect to deal with targets on both

Please suggest

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants